Not sure if this question has been asked, but in the NRMP data, it shows that for IMGS, if you have 20 interviews, you have a 100 percent probability of matching. But if you look at the actual data, there is a handful of people that had 20+ interviews, yet they did not match internal medicine? Obviously to get 20 interviews, they must have decent stats, so what is that is making these applicants not match despite having 20+ interviews?

Not sure if this question has been asked, but in the NRMP data, it shows that for IMGS, if you have 20 interviews, you have a 100 percent probability of matching. But if you look at the actual data, there is a handful of people that had 20+ interviews, yet they did not match internal medicine? Obviously to get 20 interviews, they must have decent stats, so what is that is making these applicants not match despite having 20+ interviews?

Click to expand...

I can think of a few reasons. (1) It's not a "magic number" kind of thing. For every person that nails every interview there's also someone who flubs every interview. Its not like having more interviews is going to make you a better interviewee. The interview is a huge part of the process for most programs, so the threshold to get an interview and match are very different. (2) many programs interview as many as ten times the number of slots they need to fill. However the person ranked 40 out of 100 might be a perfectly good applicant but not come close to matching in a place that's relatively popular. If he chose ten such popular places he could end up serving as the "buffer" for all if them.

aProgDirectorPastafarians Unite!SDN AdvisorSDN Moderator10+ Year Member

Another possibility is that I assume the number of interviews is self reported. Although an IMG would have nothing to gain by being dishonest, perhaps some think that this data somehow becomes part of their application, and enters a large number to "impress"

Another possibility is that I assume the number of interviews is self reported. Although an IMG would have nothing to gain by being dishonest, perhaps some think that this data somehow becomes part of their application, and enters a large number to "impress"

aProgDirectorPastafarians Unite!SDN AdvisorSDN Moderator10+ Year Member

How would they know how many interviews you have gone on? They could look at how many programs you've ranked, but applicants are known to rank programs they did not interview at -- either because they don't understand how the match works, are hoping for a miracle, or simply feel like it.

How would they know how many interviews you have gone on? They could look at how many programs you've ranked, but applicants are known to rank programs they did not interview at -- either because they don't understand how the match works, are hoping for a miracle, or simply feel like it.

Click to expand...

The data reported is not interviews. The data reported is consecutive ranks within a specialty. So those unmatched candidates with 20+ "interviews" reported are simply people who ranked 20 programs within that specialty, whether or not they actually interviewed there.

That said, I'd like to hope that most doctors are smart enough to understand that ranking programs you didn't interview at is fairly silly...

The data reported is not interviews. The data reported is consecutive ranks within a specialty. So those unmatched candidates with 20+ "interviews" reported are simply people who ranked 20 programs within that specialty, whether or not they actually interviewed there.

That said, I'd like to hope that most doctors are smart enough to understand that ranking programs you didn't interview at is fairly silly...

Click to expand...

While I'm sure there are people out there just ranking random programs that they didn't interview at, it never occurred to me there would be enough of them to significantly skew the data. I assumed that number of ranks was a pretty close surrogate for number of interviews.

While I'm sure there are people out there just ranking random programs that they didn't interview at, it never occurred to me there would be enough of them to significantly skew the data. I assumed that number of ranks was a pretty close surrogate for number of interviews.

Click to expand...

If anything, I'd argue it underestimates the # of interviews as many people don't rank all of the places where they interview (I left 4 off the list personally...still had a ROL of 14 programs).

I'd agree. Though I ranked all 18 programs I interviewed at... primarily because even the worst one (which I really, really didn't like) was a better option than not matching at all.

Click to expand...

I didn't rank 2 programs. In retrospect if I were doing it again I would have ranked both. Even though my odds of not matching were incredibly low. I did have in my back pocket that my home med school program guaranteed a prelim spot to any unmatched students.

I didn't rank 2 programs. In retrospect if I were doing it again I would have ranked both. Even though my odds of not matching were incredibly low. I did have in my back pocket that my home med school program guaranteed a prelim spot to any unmatched students.

Click to expand...

You are lucky to go to a school that actually cares about its students that they offer that. My school sucks.

That's strange. I'd assume that a number of those people misunderstood the question. Maybe for example they meant they ranked a program where they did a subi... but never had a formal interview.

Either that or they're hoping that somehow the PD of that program would type their AAMC number in by mistake and rank them.

Click to expand...

There are probably a few that misread the questions...but I would have imagined that to be true of both MD and non-MD. There is a noticeable difference between MD and non-MD. I believe that in all likelihood it comes from two factors::
1) MDs may be more educated on the match process than non-MDs (especially IMGs, who to my knowledge are very much on their own)
2) MDs don't sweat the match like non-MDs. There is a ton of anxiety of not matching for non-MD applicants, so it leads to them going to extreme measures, especially when there really is little downside of going that route.

I am a DO PM&R applicant with 10 interview. MDs have a 89% match rate, and non-MDs have a 53% match rate. MDs with 10 interviews have a match rate between 86-94%. Non-MDs with 10 interviews have a match rate between 78-85%. So there is a bit of angst when it comes to the match for me and that is as a competitive applicant in a DO-friendly specialty. Could you imagine a less competitive applicant in a less-non-MD friendly specialty? They would be bordering on desperation.